B-206123.2, JAN 19, 1983

B-206123.2: Jan 19, 1983

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DISMISSED WHERE THE PROTESTER TIMELY FILES A SHORT NOTICE REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE PRIOR DECISION. FAILS TO PROVIDE A DETAILED STATEMENT WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS KNOWN. ESW REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION AND STATED THAT "A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION AS TO THE REASONS WHY THIS REQUEST IS MADE SHALL FOLLOW UNDER A SEPARATE COVER.". WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THIS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF ESW'S FAILURE TO SUBMIT A DETAILED STATEMENT. REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION MUST BE FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. CONTAIN A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH REVERSAL OR MODIFICATION OF THE DECISION IS DEEMED WARRANTED.

B-206123.2, JAN 19, 1983

DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DISMISSED WHERE THE PROTESTER TIMELY FILES A SHORT NOTICE REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE PRIOR DECISION, BUT FAILS TO PROVIDE A DETAILED STATEMENT WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS KNOWN.

EMERSON-SACK-WARNER CORPORATION - RECONSIDERATION:

EMERSON-SACK-WARNER CORPORATION (ESW) REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION IN EMERSON-SACK-WARNER CORPORATION, B-206123, NOVEMBER 30, 1982, 82-2 CPD 488, IN WHICH WE DENIED ESW'S PROTEST AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO NEWPORT SHIP YARD, INC.

BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 7, 1982, ESW REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION AND STATED THAT "A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION AS TO THE REASONS WHY THIS REQUEST IS MADE SHALL FOLLOW UNDER A SEPARATE COVER." HOWEVER, NOTWITHSTANDING THIS STATEMENT, ESW HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY ADDITIONAL DETAILS.

WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THIS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF ESW'S FAILURE TO SUBMIT A DETAILED STATEMENT. REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION MUST BE FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, AND CONTAIN A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH REVERSAL OR MODIFICATION OF THE DECISION IS DEEMED WARRANTED, SPECIFYING ANY ERRORS OF LAW OR INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9(A) AND (B) (1982). A TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION MUST CONTAIN THAT DETAILED STATEMENT AND THE MERE STATEMENT THAT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION EXISTS AND WILL BE FORTHCOMING DOES NOT FULFILL THAT REQUIREMENT. RIVERPORT INDUSTRIES, INC. - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-205791.2, JUNE 1, 1982, 82-1 CPD 507. SINCE ESW HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DETAILED STATEMENT WITHIN THE 10-DAY TIME LIMIT, ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS UNTIMELY AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DISMISSED.

Nov 14, 2018

Nov 9, 2018

Nov 8, 2018

Nov 7, 2018

  • CDO Technologies, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest because it is untimely where it was filed more than 10 days after CDO knew or reasonably should have known the bases for its protest.
    B-416989
  • Protection Strategies, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
    B-416635

Looking for more? Browse all our products here